Exactly the point I've made in the past.
Michael Phelps is on record for having the record number of gold medals but almost half of his medals are in team events...Olympics is not ATP...they live by different rules...An Olympic gold is an Olympic gold....All Olympic gold medalists are treated equally whether they won them in individual or team events...This is not the case with MS events and Majors.
When it comes to Olympics, all gold medals have the same value.
I disagree. They are all the same for medals tables, but you can't honestly believe that the swimmers who have only won gold as part of a relay are held in the same esteem as the ones who have only won gold as an individual.
In the UK, none of the winners of team medals only have the same status as winners of individual gold. The one possible exception is Katherine Grainger, but that's because of her back story, and multiple silvers. It's why she gets a lot more recognition than the woman she rowed with.
It's just a little weird that Phelps can be touted as an all-time great when he's in the sport where medals are handed out like Tic-Tacs. I've made the point previously that the comparison with someone like a decathlete shows the farcical nature of the way swimming is run. The greatest decathlete will compete his entire career and generally only get one good chance at an Olympic medal when he's in the roughly 30-35 year decathlon prime. All of those ten disciplines across 15+ years of training and only the possibility of one gold medal to show for it. It puts Phelps' medals somewhat into perspective imo.
That said, a gold medal is a gold medal. I think it's actually somewhat cool that Federer won his in doubles - it shoes a further breadth of achievement for someone who has already rewritten the book insofar as singles accomplishments is concerned.
Phelps is an all-time great of swimming, where he competes against other great swimmers who have the same opportunities. He might count as an all time great athlete by virtue of dominating his own field over a number of years, not because he won more gold medals than athletes who can only enter one Olympic event every four years.
I agree with the general point about the decathlon, but have to draw attention to Daley Thompson, winner of two decathlon golds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daley_Thompson
For my money, he should be held in much higher regard than he is, but I think he's a product of his times, and ironically, that his achievements are so exceptional.
Sir Steve Redgrave is arguably the ultimate Olympian, winning gold at five consecutive games. The fact that the team around him changed over the years and they still won makes him look good, but then it's reasonable to presume that he wouldn't have won a solo rowing gold five games in a row, so someone like Daley could never compete. Rowing is another one of those sports that gives out a high volume of medals, so there are loads of rowing gold medalists, especially in the UK as we tend to dominate the sport. Dare I say it, it's easier to get a gold in rowing, or swimming, than it is to get a gold in decathlon (or tennis).
Redgrave's legacy also benefits from Britain continuing to produce multiple gold medalists, as he is an important and high profile role model for them.
There is also a bit of a difference between sports that are team events by default, and events that are solo at a basic level, but add in a relay to finish competitions with everyone involved. Doubles tennis is a distinct event, so carries more validity than the relays, but isn't quite up there with the genuine team events. There never could be a solo basketball gold.
